In Cherokee & Cherokee [2025] FedCFamC1A 191, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate) overturned a trial decision that had wrongly excluded a Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) pension from the divisible property pool. The appeal clarified that even when a pension is non-commutable and in payment phase, it remains “property” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and must be properly considered under s 79(4). The judgment reinforces the distinction between “property”, “income”, and “financial resources”, and provides a blueprint for handling complex defined-benefit superannuation interests in property settlements.Facts a

In Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1037, Judge Betts of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced a heartbreaking dilemma — two teenage sisters caught in a prolonged, toxic parental conflict. The Court found that both parents had significantly contributed to the children’s emotional harm, yet concluded that the children’s best interests required they remain living with their father. The case underscores the Court’s grim duty to choose the “least worst” option when no safe or ideal outcome exists.Facts and IssuesParties: Mr Galpin (Father) and Ms Varley (Mother)Children: X (14) and Y (13), both of Aboriginal descent through their maternal lineHistory:Parents separat

In Hallett & Hallett [2025] FedCFamC1A 188, Justice Schonell of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) overturned a decision that refused a wife leave to commence property proceedings out of time. The appeal succeeded because the primary judge mistakenly found that hardship “could” arise if leave were not granted — rather than determining, as required by law, that hardship “would” arise. This seemingly minor linguistic difference proved legally fatal, underscoring the precision demanded when assessing hardship under s 44(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Facts and IssuesParties: Ms Hallett (Applicant/Wife) and Mr Hallett (Respondent/Husba

In Halmi & Halmi [2025] FedCFamC1F 551, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a father’s application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), refusing to return two young children to Singapore. Although the mother wrongfully retained the children in Australia, the Court found that her return—and consequently the children’s—would expose them to an intolerable situation and grave risk of psychological harm due to the father’s long history of violence, coercive control, and alcohol abuse. The case highlights how, even in international abduction matters where return is the default, Australi

In Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825, Judge Bertone of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) delivered a decisive judgment emphasising that a parent’s capacity to provide safety, stability, and accountability outweighs historical caregiving arrangements. This case involved two young children and parents entangled in a cycle of family violence, drug use, and instability. The central question: who could best promote the children’s safety and wellbeing moving forward?Facts and IssuesParties: Ms Harcourt (Mother) and Mr Corrington (Father).Children: X (born 2018) and Y (born 2020).Background: Both parents used drugs during their relationship; the Father per

In Najar & Bata (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1016, Judge Street sentenced a father for twelve breaches of parenting orders that restricted his contact with the children. The contraventions, which included unauthorised communications and leaving gifts, were found proven but not serious enough to justify imprisonment. Instead, the Court imposed twelve concurrent nine-month good-behaviour bonds, each carrying a potential $3,300 fine for any future breach — totalling $39,600 if reoffended. The case underscores that even where a party shows remorse, repeated defiance of court orders will attract consequences designed to enforce compliance and deter further misconduct.FactsFinal orders (27 Septemb

In Whittaker & Whittaker [2025] FedCFamC2F 955, Judge O’Shannessy of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) considered whether a father, who discontinued his post-final parenting application seeking to release a family report for unrelated state proceedings, should pay the mother’s costs. The judgment reinforces the principle that while parties ordinarily bear their own costs under s 117(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court retains broad discretion to make a costs order when a party’s conduct causes unnecessary expense. The Court found that the father’s late discontinuance—after the mother had filed responsive material—was unreasonable and caused her avoidable costs.

In Moss & Moss (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 510, Justice Brasch confronted one of family law’s most difficult dilemmas — allegations of child sexual abuse that could not be substantiated by credible evidence. The mother alleged that the father and paternal grandmother had physically and sexually abused both children, while the father denied all wrongdoing. The Court concluded that no positive finding of abuse could be made and that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. Conversely, the mother’s obsessive conviction and her “evidence-collecting” conduct were found to create emotional harm, justifying orders that limited her influence and introduced therapeutic support. The deci

In Huisman & Simonds [2025] FedCFamC1F 489, Justice Austin dismissed an urgent application by the paternal grandmother seeking to reverse interim care orders and have an infant live with her instead of the mother. The grandmother’s case was based on a positive drug test showing the mother’s use of amphetamines, which she argued placed the child at risk. Despite that breach, the Court found the evidence insufficient to justify an abrupt change in residence only six weeks before the final hearing. Justice Austin reaffirmed the long-standing principle that interim parenting orders should preserve stability and avoid reactive decisions where the facts remain untested.FactsThe child was born

In Woods & Holmes (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 463, Justice Gill delivered one of the first detailed interpretations of the new protected confidences provisions under Division 1B of Part XI of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The mother, supported by a counselling organisation (“C Organisation”), sought to prevent the production of her counselling records subpoenaed by the father, arguing they were protected confidences whose disclosure would cause harm. The Court carefully weighed the legislative purpose of safeguarding sensitive therapeutic communications against the judicial duty to access relevant evidence. In a nuanced ruling, Justice Gill found that while the communications qualified as

In Cuyper & Cuyper [2025] FedCFamC1A 176, Justice Riethmuller of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) allowed a wife’s appeal from a Western Australian Magistrates Court decision concerning final property orders. The appeal turned on the denial of procedural fairness — where the husband changed the property division sought on the morning of trial without proper notice — and on significant factual and legal errors in assessing contributions. The Court held that the wife had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to a last-minute shift from a 50/50 to a 60/40 division, and that the trial magistrate erred in both fact and method by assuming equalit

In Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455, Justice Kari of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a comprehensive ruling addressing a father’s barrage of interlocutory applications across parenting, property, and procedural issues. Despite repeated warnings, the father’s conduct — marked by abusive communications, baseless filings, and disregard for orders — culminated in the Court issuing a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), prohibiting him from instituting further proceedings without leave. The decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against litigation misuse and its priority to protect parties and children f